POLICY
BRIEF
EUROPEAN
COUNCIL
ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS
ecfr.eu
PUTIN’S HYDRA:
INSIDE RUSSIA’S
INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
Mark Galeotti
•
•
•
•
•
SUMMARY
Russia’s intelligence agencies are engaged in an
active and aggressive campaign in support of
the Kremlin’s wider geopolitical agenda.
As well as espionage, Moscow’s “special services”
conduct active measures aimed at subverting
and destabilising European governments,
operations in support of Russian economic
interests, and attacks on political enemies.
Moscow has developed an array of overlapping
and competitive security and spy services. The
aim is to encourage risk-taking and multiple
sources, but it also leads to turf wars and a
tendency to play to Kremlin prejudices.
While much useful intelligence is collected,
the machinery for managing, processing, and
assessing it is limited. As a result, intelligence’s
capacity to influence strategy and wider policy
is questionable.
Europe should take a tougher approach to
Russian operations, investing resources
and political will in counterintelligence, and
addressing governance weaknesses that facilitate
the Kremlin’s campaigns, including tougher
controls on money of dubious provenance.
For his birthday in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin
was treated to an exhibition of faux Greek friezes showing
him in the guise of Hercules. In one, he was slaying the
“hydra of sanctions”.1
The image of the hydra – a voracious and vicious multiheaded beast, guided by a single mind, and which grows
new heads as soon as one is lopped off – crops up frequently
in discussions of Russia’s intelligence and security services.
Murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko and his co-author
Yuri Felshtinsky wrote of the way “the old KGB, like some
multi-headed hydra, split into four new structures” after
1991.2 More recently, a British counterintelligence officer
described Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as
a hydra because of the way that, for every plot foiled or
operative expelled, more quickly appear.
The West finds itself in a new “hot peace” in which many
consider Russia not just as an irritant or challenge, but
as an outright threat. For Europe, however, this threat is
not likely to materialise in military form. Rather, it comes
from covert, indirect, and political operations, typically
conducted, controlled, or facilitated by the numerous
Russian intelligence and security agencies, which strike
from every side but are driven by a single intent.
The agencies are active, aggressive, and well funded.
They are granted considerable latitude in their methods,
unconstrained by the concerns of diplomats or the scrutiny
1 “V Moskve proidet vystavka ‘12 podvigov Putina’”, Lenta.ru, 6 October 2014, available at
http://lenta.ru/news/2014/10/06/putin1/.
2 Yuri Felshtinky and Alexander Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within,
second edition (London: Gibson Square, 2006).
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
of legislators. Furthermore, many of the people closest to
Putin hail from the ranks of the Chekists (veterans of the
security agencies, after the first Bolshevik political police,
the Cheka) or siloviki (“men of force” from the military,
security, and intelligence services). This is especially
important given that many of the formal institutions of
Russian foreign and security policy making – the Foreign
and Defence Ministries, the Security Council (SB), the
cabinet – have become nothing more than executive
agencies where policies are announced and applied,
not discussed and decided. Instead, decisions are made
informally by Putin and his confidants and cronies.
The Soviet KGB security service was powerful and willing
to use espionage, destabilisation, and subversion, but
was tightly controlled by a political leadership ultimately
committed to the status quo. Under Boris Yeltsin in the
1990s, the state was weak, but the intelligence agencies
doubly so. The agencies began renewing their powers during
Putin’s first terms as president, but his policy was one of
pragmatic accommodation with the West.
Since Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012, though, the
regime has unleashed increasingly powerful intelligence
agencies in campaigns of domestic repression and external
destabilisation, appearing to genuinely want to revise the
structures of the international order.
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
This is unlikely to change any time soon. It is therefore
essential to look at these agencies in detail, exploring not
only their missions but their strengths and weaknesses, and
their position within the Putin system. This paper analyses
the modus operandi and role of the agencies – the brutal
competition between them, their forays into crime, and their
willingness to take extreme measures, even targeted killings.
2
The paper rejects the widely held belief that the intelligence
agencies are the power behind the throne in Moscow. Their
lack of unity and common goals, and their dependence
on Putin, mean that they should be considered as merely
another branch of the elite. Meanwhile, the highly
personalised systems for evaluating intelligence and
transmitting it to the president damage its quality and
impact on policy. While the agencies should by no means
be discounted, what emerges is that for all their apparent
effectiveness, they have serious weaknesses.
Unlike the hydra with its single controlling intellect, the
agencies are often divided, competitive, and poorly tasked.
They are certainly not in charge of the Kremlin, but nor is
the Kremlin wholly adept at managing them.
Their actions also undermine Russia’s long-term position.
So, while this is undoubtedly a serious challenge, Europe
should base its actions on what the agencies are, not what
Europe fears they may be. This paper calls on European
Union governments to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude
to Russian intelligence operations in Europe, enhancing
capacity sharing and counterintelligence and tracking the
illicit movement of funds that lies behind these activities.
By showing that aggression abroad has major costs,
Europe can push the intelligence services to take a more
cautious approach.
The “warriors of the secret battlefield”
Modern Russia has an array of intelligence and security
agencies. In Soviet times, there were essentially only
two: the KGB, which handled everything from foreign
espionage to domestic security, and the Main Intelligence
Directorate (GRU) of the General Staff, which handled
military intelligence. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the
initial plan was to dismember the KGB, but Yeltsin began to
backtrack as he encountered growing political resistance,
thanks to the influence of KGB veterans who opposed
reform. This was reinforced when another ex-KGB officer,
Vladimir Putin, rose to the presidency in 1999-2000 after a
brief stint as director of the Federal Security Service (FSB).
Broadly speaking, there are four main agencies within
Russia’s intelligence community. The most powerful is still
the FSB, whose domestic security remit has increasingly
extended to certain external activities, including
assassination. Not only does the Service have the closest
historical ties to Putin, but its current director, Alexander
Bortnikov, and his predecessor, Nikolai Patrushev (now
chair of the Security Council) are personally close to the
president. The FSB is also heavily involved in cyber security
and offensive information operations of every kind.
External intelligence gathering is primarily the domain
of the Foreign Intelligence Service and the GRU. 3 Both
operate a mix of human intelligence officers under
diplomatic cover, inside embassies but outside the
diplomatic chain of command, and covert officers, or
“illegals”. There are crucial distinctions in their missions
and organisational cultures. The Foreign Intelligence
Service is quite traditional, not least in its penchant for
long-term, deep-cover spy rings, inherited from the KGB,
and often of questionable cost-effectiveness.
The GRU’s aggressive and risk-taking culture reflects its
military background and its broad portfolio of assets, which
include substantial electronic, satellite, and battlefield
reconnaissance capabilities, and Spetsnaz (special forces).
Though part of the General Staff apparatus, it enjoys a
degree of operational autonomy and its chief can brief the
president directly.
The Federal Protection Service (FSO), which incorporates
the Presidential Security Service (SBP), is the last of the
major agencies. Its formal role is primarily to protect key
government figures and locations, evident in its Kremlin
Regiment and its supply of bodyguards to Putin’s security
detail. However, it has expanded and diversified in several
unexpected directions, including watching the security
community itself.
3 Within the General Staff itself, the GRU is sometimes known simply (and confusingly) as
the Main Administration, but GRU is much more widely used, including by Putin.
Roles of Russia’s intelligence community
Political
Economic
intelligence intelligence
Military
Active
Counter
intelligence measures -intelligence
Political
security
Law
enforcement
Federal Security Service (FSB)
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)
Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)
Federal Protection Service (FSO)
Interior Ministry (MVD)
Prosecutor General’s Office (GP)
Investigatory Committee (SK)
The Federal Anti-Drug Service (FSKN)
National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NAK)
Soviet KGB
Main role
Subsidiary role
The wider security apparatus includes a whole range of
other services. The Interior Ministry (MVD) is responsible
not just for regular policing but also undercover operations
against serious and organised crime, including terrorists and
extremists — which in practice often also means peaceful
dissidents — along with the Investigatory Committee (SK)
and the Prosecutor General’s Office (GP). The Federal AntiDrug Service (FSKN), which carries out limited operational
intelligence gathering in Afghanistan and Central Asia,
and the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NAK), a
coordinating body convened by the director of the FSB,
complete the main security services.
The new National Guard, announced in April 2016, is not
an intelligence agency but a public security force – a type
of Praetorian Guard that answers directly to the president.
As such, it is not covered in this paper – although, given the
empire-building habits of Russian agencies, that does not
preclude it from seeking to acquire such a role in the future.
Its creation does have wider implications: the FSKN has
been subordinated to the Interior Ministry, and the domestic
security agencies are warily watching this new rival in case
it seeks to expand its mandate. It offers a case study of one
of this paper’s main theses: that the security community in
Russia is characterised by division, duplication, and deep
institutional rivalry.
The new nobility4
On the surface, this intelligence and security community
may look broadly familiar to Europeans. However, there
are institutional and cultural characteristics that, especially
when combined with the nature of decision-making within
the Russian system, mean that these agencies and the “new
nobility” who work in them — to use former security chief
Patrushev’s words — have a distinctive operational culture
of their own.5
Overlapping responsibilities
If the Soviet leaders tried to create efficiency and
manageability by bringing nearly all security responsibilities
under one agency, the KGB, their successors have adopted
the opposite approach, resulting in numerous and growing
overlaps between these agencies.
4 This section develops ideas raised in my article “Putin’s Spies and Security Men: His
Strongest Allies, His Greatest Weakness”, Russian Analytical Digest, No. 173, 12 October
2015.
5 “Direktor federalnoi sluzhby bezopasnosti Rossii Nikolai Patrushev”, Komsomolskaya
Pravda, 20 December 2000.
3
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
In Ukraine, for example, before the fall of President Viktor
Yanukovych in 2014, the Foreign Intelligence Service
operated there as if it was a foreign country, but so did the
FSB, as if it was not. The GRU had penetrated Ukraine’s
security structures and was deeply embedded in Crimea,
home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Even the Interior Ministry
exerted influence over Kyiv’s law enforcement structures.
None appear seriously to have anticipated the outcome of
the Maidan uprising (although an Interior Ministry source
told me that, a month before the uprising, they were warning
that the regime’s mishandling of the protests had created a
near-irreversible situation).
Nonetheless, when Yanukovych fled to Russia, it was the
hapless Foreign Intelligence Service that bore the brunt of
Putin’s wrath, and sacrificial sackings and demotions ensued
(this was confirmed by Source F).6 Through deft footwork,
the FSB managed to escape blame even though Colonel
General Sergei Beseda, of the FSB department tasked with
operations in former Soviet republics, had visited Kyiv
just ten days before Yanukovych’s flight. Indeed, it used
the opportunity to claim primacy over future intelligence
operations in Ukraine.7
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
This is the same principle of “competitive intelligence”
adopted by the United States intelligence community but
with a strong admixture of bloody-fanged social Darwinism.
The blurring of boundaries encourages regular direct and
indirect turf wars, and not just over the usual bureaucratic
prizes of responsibilities, funding, and access to the
leadership but also business opportunities for officers, and
sometimes outright survival.
4
The Federal Agency for Government Communications
and Information (FAPSI) discovered this to its cost in
2003 when an alliance of the FSB, the Foreign Intelligence
Service, and the GRU led to its cannibalisation, but this is
only the most extreme example. “Silovik wars” have raged
on-and-off since 2004. Most recently, a successful bid by the
FSB to put its own man in charge of the Interior Ministry’s
economic crime and corruption directorate in 2014 saw the
mysterious death of its deputy chief. While being questioned
by the Investigatory Committee, he apparently managed to
evade his guards and leap from a sixth-floor window.8
More often, the competition is less visible and bloody
and is fought through attempts to outperform and
embarrass rivals, and acquire the information that will
most please the powers that be. According to Source C, for
example, the Foreign Intelligence Service and the GRU
collect virtually identical economic information, and, at
times, officers from both services even try to suborn their
embassies’ economic staff in order to prevent their rivals
from obtaining the latest data.
Likewise, GRU officer Colonel Viktor Ilyushin was
expelled from France in 2014, in part for seeking to gather
compromising information – kompromat – on President
François Hollande’s personal life, the kind of political
operation that would usually be the responsibility of the
Foreign Intelligence Service or even the FSB.9 Indeed, the
FSB has steadily expanded its political operations and
their aggressiveness in the Baltic states and to an extent
in Nordic Europe, rivaling even the GRU and the Foreign
Intelligence Service.10
This competition can be a strength. It means that the agencies
are often aggressive, imaginative, and entrepreneurial. It
also means a degree of planned redundancy. In theory,
it should provide multiple, independent perspectives. As
journalist Yulia Latynina put it, “The war between the
security services is our ‘separation of powers’. Some of them
whisper into the president’s right ear, others into the left.”11
As will be discussed later, though, the political realities of
late Putinism tend to militate against that.
There are also serious drawbacks. The urge for quick
results often encourages agencies to seize the low-hanging
fruit. More to the point, as discussed later, the need to
please the Kremlin inevitably competes with the integrity
of the information gathering and analytic processes, which
are vital if intelligence is to be of true value. Coordination
and intelligence sharing is often limited and require direct
“manual control” in the form of the intervention of Putin or
his representatives.
It was clearly a matter of utmost importance that the 2014
Sochi Winter Olympics proceed smoothly and safely, for
example. One of Putin’s trusted fixers, Deputy Prime
Minister Dmitry Kozak, managed the event. He convened
a joint taskforce chaired by Oleg Syromolotov, veteran
head of the FSB’s Counterintelligence Directorate, and
including a first deputy interior minister and the deputy
head of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee. The need
for such high-power representatives from the key services
was precisely because the normal level of coordination
would have been inadequate. The government made clear
that the officials’ futures depended on positive results
and intelligence sharing. As Source B – the FSB insider –
noted, “without such people pushing cooperation, knowing
their heads were on the line, we would have continued to
play our usual games.”
9 Vincent Jauvert, “Révélations sur les espions russes en France”, Le Nouvel Observateur,
24 July 2014.
7 Andrei Soldatov, “The True Role of the FSB in the Ukrainian Crisis”, Moscow Times, 15
April 2014, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-true-roleof-the-fsb-in-the-ukrainian-crisis/498072.html.
10 For example, Latvia’s Constitutional Protection Bureau’s latest report specifically notes
the use of blackmail and coercion by the FSB to recruit assets. “Several cases of Russian
intelligence agents forcing Latvian residents to cooperate with them noticed last year”,
LETA, 29 March 2016, available at http://www.leta.lv/eng/home/important/50C679433C10-48FA-AECA-E5A9A47AD81A/.
8 Joshua Yaffa, “The Double Sting”, The New Yorker, 27 July 2015, available at http://
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/27/the-double-sting.
11 Yuliya Latynina, “Bol’shoi brat slyshit tebya”, Novaya Gazeta, 11 October 2007,
available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/33686.html.
6 For a discussion of key sources, see the methodological note below.
Wartime mindset
Monetising security
Russia’s agencies regard themselves as not just sources
of intelligence for decision-makers and advocates for
particular policies, but also as instruments of direct action.
This is especially evident within the GRU, which has
established its reputation as a service willing to operate
in highly unstable regions and through questionable and
dangerous proxies and agents, from arms dealers such
as Viktor Bout (in US prison since 2010) to the gangsterwarlords, militias, and mercenaries of the Donbas.12 As a
former GRU officer put it, “not all of us were Spetsnaz, but
we like to think we all are like Spetsnaz.”
For all their belief in their role as defenders of the state,
many officers still eagerly exploit the legal and illegal
economic opportunities at their disposal. Corruption
remains endemic within the state apparatus, and the
additional lack of transparency and control makes this a
particular problem in the agencies.
However, the emphasis on coercive methods, active
operations, taking chances, and risking international
opprobrium reflects a wartime mindset across the agencies.
Even before the worsening of relations with the West, they
appear genuinely to have felt that Russia was under serious,
even existential threat, which demanded extreme responses.
There are three complementary aspects to this mindset,
best illustrated by three quotations. The first is that “if
the West loses, we gain.” This zero-sum perspective,
reminiscent of the Cold War, comes from a group of
Foreign Intelligence Service officers, as recounted second
hand by a Russian academic.
The second is that “Russia is at risk”, as expressed by Source
B, an FSB officer, in 2014 (before Crimea). When pressed,
he pointed to the Maidan uprising, which he genuinely
believes was a CIA operation. This intelligent, well-travelled
individual asserted that there was a concerted Western
drive to force regime change on Russia through political
subversion and to undermine Russia’s distinctive historical,
religious, and social identity in order to weaken resistance to
a global US-led hegemony.
The third is “better action than inaction”, which Source F
recounted hearing in a meeting with Foreign Intelligence
Service officers. Source A, the former insider, agreed that
although the agencies could be as bureaucratic as any Russian
institution, there was a clear bias towards risk-taking,
especially given the competitive environment in which they
operate. Whether this is cause or effect, part of the process
has been the diminution of the power of the Foreign Ministry
(MID) and its capacity to curb overseas operations with
potential negative political repercussions. The FSB’s crossborder raid to kidnap Estonian security officer Eston Kohver
in 2014, for example, seems to have been conducted with
minimal consultation with the Foreign Ministry.
This is all the more serious considering the formidable
assets that security and intelligence officers have at their
disposal. They can use or, even more productively, threaten
to use force or legal powers and have access to sensitive,
dangerous, or simply bankable information. As a result,
there are many tales of businesspeople being forced to pay
protection – or, more often, to hand over a share of their
enterprise – to security officers (especially from the FSB).
These officers may also have contacts within the regular
underworld that can be leveraged or with whom they can
join forces. This reflects the general blending of money,
crime, and political power in Russia, but is also a by-product
of a marked willingness to use criminals as instruments
of state security. There is, for example, ample evidence of
Russian hackers being granted a degree of dispensation
so long as, when called on, they attack targets of the FSB’s
choice, from foreign states to liberal websites.13
Likewise, the Kohver incident in Estonia revolved around the
kidnapped agent’s investigation of a cross-border cigarettesmuggling ring. It is implausible that a corrupt local FSB
official would send an elite squad into another country and
trigger a diplomatic incident just to protect a criminal sideline
— or at least do this and get away with it. It is more likely
that this was a joint venture in which the FSB, which has
numerous and no doubt expensive political operations in
the Baltic region, facilitated an organised crime venture in
return for a share of the profits.14 This money, generated in
Europe, becomes operational funds with no direct, provable
connection to Moscow, ideal for bankrolling a useful political
organisation here, bribing an official there.
However, the more agencies are involved in such activities,
the harder it is to be sure that the tail is not wagging the dog.
An interesting case in point relates to the GRU’s tasking of
their Canadian agent. Along with the usual fare of military,
political, and economic information, he was asked to use
his position at a military intelligence centre to find out what
information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had on
Russian gangsters operating in Canada.15 Russian as well
as Canadian interlocutors have separately suggested that
this was not driven by strategic GRU tasking so much as
someone within the chain of command realising that such
information might be of commercial value to the gangsters.
13 Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov, “The Kremlin and the hackers: partners in crime?”,
od:Russia, 25 April 2012, available at https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/irinaborogan-andrei-soldatov/kremlin-and-hackers-partners-in-crime.
14 Three of the smugglers were subsequently convicted on espionage charges in Estonia.
12 I explore this further in “Putin’s Secret Weapon”, Foreign Policy, 7 July 2014, available
at http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/07/putins-secret-weapon/.
15 Leslie MacKinnon, “Spy Delisle's guilty plea preserves Navy secrets”, CBCNews, 11
October 2012, available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spy-delisle-s-guilty-pleapreserves-navy-secrets-1.1143658.
5
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
In other words, state assets were hijacked for criminal ends
rather than vice versa.
The overall result is a culture of corruption that permeates
the agencies. It is hard to reach a definitive assessment of
how far this undermines their operational capacity, but it
does appear to influence even top-level decision-making. In
2014, for example, Investigatory Committee chief Alexander
Bastrykin persuaded Putin to introduce a bill allowing
criminal cases for tax crimes to be opened without consulting
the tax authorities, creating sweeping new powers that are
more useful for extortion than for policing.16 Likewise, the
2014 struggle over the Interior Ministry’s economic crime
unit was almost certainly as much because this generates
rents as for any political reason.
The highest roof of all
Ultimately, the security and intelligence community as a
whole enjoys the favour of Putin. At the 2015 celebration
of the annual Day of Security Service Personnel, he called
them “strong and courageous people, true professionals
who are reliably protecting Russia’s sovereignty and
national integrity and the lives of our citizens, who are
ready to perform the most complicated, responsible, and
dangerous assignments.”17 This favour is neither uncritical
nor unconditional, nor just a matter of sentiment. Rather, it
reflects a shared perception of Russia’s situation and goals,
and a pragmatic political alliance.
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
The agencies have all done well under him, seeing their budgets,
powers, and profiles grow. When the FSB was forced to absorb
a 10 percent headcount reduction in 2015 in response to the
financial crisis, it was a shock to an organisation that had seen
its budget increase in real terms every year since 1999, even
through the 2008-2009 rouble crisis.18
6
Their relative political muscle has also increased. Since
Putin’s return in 2012, for example, the balance of power has
shifted, and the spies appear far more willing to throw their
weight around, both in Moscow and in the embassies. The
Foreign Intelligence Service and GRU “legals” – agents under
diplomatic cover – work within embassies, and their actions
inevitably reflect on the Foreign Ministry. Both sources C
and F observed that, in the earlier Putin presidencies, if their
actions caused undue embarrassment, Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov would “get someone in from Yasenevo [the
Foreign Intelligence Service headquarters] to shout at”, as
Source C put it. Even the General Staff reportedly had to
apologise when GRU operations went wrong.
Yet this support is balanced by a keen sense of the political
realities and contingent on the agencies delivering. For
all his ties to the FSB, for example, Putin has consistently
16 Sergei Nikitenko, “Luchshe zaplatit”, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 20 January 2015, available
at http://rg.ru/2015/01/20/dela.html.
17 “Vladimir Putin attended gala reception to mark Security Agency Worker’s Day”,
Kremlin.ru, 19 December 2015, available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
news/50977.
18 “Aleksandr Bortnikov sokrashchaet FSB”, Fontanka, 11 February 2015, available at
http://www.fontanka.ru/2015/02/11/021/.
refused its more ambitious empire-building plans, which
would see it absorb agencies such as the federal anti-drug
agency or even the Foreign Intelligence Service, putting
it on track to form some kind of KGB 2.0. As an insider,
he is presumably well aware of the danger in giving any
one agency too much power. Instead, he plays agencies off
against each other, encouraging rivalries such as between
the Foreign Intelligence Service and GRU, or Prosecutor
General’s Office and Investigatory Committee, up to the
point at which they become inconvenient.
Likewise, the agencies must appear to be pulling their
weight. Following the 2008 Georgian war, the GRU found
itself in increasing disfavour. Its Spetsnaz special forces
had acquitted themselves well, but the government felt
that the wider intelligence aspects of the conflict had been
mishandled. Dated information led to air strikes wasted
on empty and closed airstrips, the Georgians fought better
than GRU analyses had led the Kremlin to believe, and
communications intercepts failed.
The agency’s rivals gathered. The Foreign Intelligence Service
sought to assert primacy in the field of foreign intelligence,
the FSB cast hungry eyes at the portion of FAPSI’s radioelectronic capacities that the GRU had acquired in 2003,
and even comrades within the military capitalised on the
situation. In 2010, the Kremlin reassigned the Spetsnaz to
regular military commands19 and cut the central GRU staff
by a thousand officers.20
Rumours circulated that military intelligence would be
downgraded from a main directorate of the General Staff to a
regular one. Beyond the blow to its prestige, this would have
dramatically affected its autonomy, not least by removing
its chief access to the president. In the end, Igor Sergun,
who headed the GRU from December 2011 until his death
in late 2015, managed to turn around the agency’s fortunes
through a combination of luck and a keen awareness of what
goes down well in the Kremlin.21 But it was a lesson in how
an agency’s future depends on performance, or at least on
the leadership’s perception of its performance.
Strong left arms of the state
In Soviet times, just as ordinary citizens had to go na levoi,
“on the left”, to get scarce goods or services through favours
or the black market, the leadership relied on the KGB
to make up for weaknesses in the state apparatus, from
assessing the public mood to trying to close the technology
gap with the West. Likewise, Putin’s intelligence services are
not only the overt and covert arms of state security, but also
perform a variety of roles that are not necessarily under the
remit of these agencies in other countries.
19 Sergei Ptichkin, “Letuchie myshi stanovyatsya polemymi”, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 23
October 2010, available at http://rg.ru/2010/10/23/gru-specnaz-site.html.
20 Denis Tel’manov, “Nachal’nika GRU uvolyat po vykhode s bol’nichnogo”, Izvestiya, 27
September 2011, available at http://izvestia.ru/news/501899.
21 See Mark Galeotti, “Putin’s secret weapon”, Foreign Policy, 7 July 2014, available at
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/07/putins-secret-weapon/.
Espionage
As far back as 2010, the British Security Service (MI5)
warned that “the threat from Russian espionage continues
to be significant and is similar to the Cold War […] the
number of Russian intelligence officers in London is at the
same level as in Soviet times.”22 Since then, security services
across Europe have been registering a continued uptick in
the scale and aggressiveness of Russian operations. For
example, the head of the Norwegian Police Security Service
warned that “Russian intelligence has the largest potential
to damage Norwegian interests”, while Sweden’s security
service, SÄPO, has characterised Russian espionage as its
greatest challenge and warned of “preparation for military
operations against Sweden”.23 The Russians are engaging in
massive and voracious intelligence-gathering campaigns,
fuelled by still-substantial budgets and a Kremlin culture
that sees deceit and secret agendas even where none exist.
The general consensus within European counterintelligence
services appears to be that Russian collection operations are
not just highly active but also often extremely professional.
Tasking, though, appears less impressive. While the Foreign
Intelligence Service and GRU have a strong sense of the
military and technical secrets they are meant to uncover,
their political objectives are sometimes naïve, reflecting a
questionable grasp of democratic political systems.
It was telling that one of the tasks assigned to the ring of deep
cover agents exposed in the US in 2010 was to penetrate
think-tanks to uncover their agendas, as if that took more
than a glance at their web pages.24 In other cases, agents
have been tasked with gathering information that is readily
available through open sources. For example, according
to the indictment against him, when Foreign Intelligence
Service “illegal” agent Evgeny Buryakov was tasked with
assessing the impact of economic sanctions on Russia, he
simply conducted internet searches.25
Active measures
Perhaps the most striking of the agencies’ external operations
are their “active measures”: everything from assassination
to political subversion. While many countries’ intelligence
agencies sometimes conduct such operations, the Russians
have put this at the centre of their concept of intelligence
work. They also more readily integrate other institutions
and individuals — from banks and charities to journalists
and truck drivers — into their activities.
22 Richard Norton-Taylor, “Russian spies in UK ‘at cold war levels’, says MI5”, the
Guardian, 29 June 2010, available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/
russian-spies-cold-war-levels.
23 “Russian spying can ‘damage’ Norway: PST”, the Local (Norway), 10 February 2016,
available at http://www.thelocal.no/20160210/russia-spying-seen-as-major-threat-tonorway; SAPO Annual Report 2014, available at http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/downlo
ad/18.4c7cab6d1465fb27b01f1a/1426682274489/Arsbok2014_webb_slutgiltig.pdf; Lucy
Westcott, “Sweden labels Russia its biggest threat”, Newsweek, 18 March 2015, available
at http://europe.newsweek.com/sweden-labels-russia-its-biggest-threat-314871?rm=eu.
24 Toby Harnden and Michele Walk, “Russian spy applied for jobs at think tanks with
links to Obama”, the Telegraph, 8 July 2010, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7879850/Russian-spy-applied-for-jobs-at-thinktanks-with-links-to-Obama.html.
25 “US v. Evgeny Buryakov, Et Al Complaint”, 26 January 2015, available at https://www.
justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/01/26/buryakov_
et_al_complaint.pdf.
At the most extreme end are targeted killings and direct
attacks, generally conducted by the GRU or FSB. Since the
2006 murder in London of defector Litvinenko, there has
been something of a fad for seeing Muscovite murderers
behind every unexpected Russian death abroad, but the
main aim of such activity is generally to eliminate direct
threats or to create chaos. Both the FSB and GRU, for
example, have been implicated in assassinations of Chechen
rebels and their allies abroad.
Likewise, Georgia before the 2008 war and Ukraine since
2014 have seen killings and terrorist attacks aimed less at
specific individuals than at creating a climate of fear and
insecurity.26 This is meant to undermine public and political
will and to support a Russian narrative that these countries
are falling into anarchy. Where guns or bombs are not
called for, sometimes a computer virus or directed denialof-service (DDOS) attack will work. As noted above, the
FSB is especially involved with launching cyber attacks or
commissioning them from Russian hackers.
There are also direct political operations aimed at
discrediting or co-opting specific individuals or groups, or
undermining policies that Moscow dislikes. Again, these are
not as common as sometimes suspected, especially because
they are difficult and carry a considerable risk of failure
and backlash. They have, however, been a feature of the
Eurasian political landscape. In Ukraine, for example, the
FSB has been accused of involvement in the poisoning of
Viktor Yushchenko during the 2004 presidential elections
and was reportedly behind a forged document meant to
derail a gas deal between Kyiv and Turkmenistan.27
Far more common is the use of the intelligence agencies to
support political and other movements sympathetic to or
simply useful for Moscow. This has long been practised in
countries Russia regards as within its sphere of influence —
for example, the FSB’s interference in Moldovan politics by
backing populist candidate Renato Usatii in 2014.28 However,
the Foreign Intelligence Service and FSB are now especially
active in Europe, and the organisations they support include
anti-fracking environmental movements (which, however
genuine in their concerns, usefully maintain Moscow’s
gas markets), nationalist and anti-federal political groups,
Russian diaspora movements in the Baltics, and separatists
from Spain to Scotland.
They sometimes work through or in parallel with overt
agencies such as Rossotrudnichestvo (the Federal Agency
for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots
Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian
Cooperation), charities, and even financial institutions, such
26 The US government cable “Russian Active Measures in Georgia” of 20 July 2007 gives
an especially good account of operations there conducted by both the GRU and FSB as
Moscow sought to provoke President Mikheil Saakashvili into making the first move,
available at https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TBILISI1732_a.html.
27 Andrei Soldatov, “The True Role of the FSB in the Ukrainian Crisis”, Moscow Times, 15
April 2014, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-true-roleof-the-fsb-in-the-ukrainian-crisis/498072.html.
28 See, for example, “FSB şi Patria lui Renato Usatîi”, Ziarul de gardā, 27 November
2014, available at http://www.zdg.md/editia-print/investigatii/fsb-si-patria-lui-renatousatii.
7
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
as the Russian banks that loaned millions of euros to French
nationalist Marine Le Pen’s Front National.29 It is often
difficult to tell where the activities of the agencies end and
other Russian institutions begin, but this is not necessarily
a meaningful distinction: to the Kremlin, the tools in its box
are interchangeable.
Economic assets
Even before the current economic crisis, the Kremlin thought
— as naively as the Soviets in the 1970s and early 1980s —
that intelligence capacity could somehow be converted into
business success and technological growth.
So far, the nature of the sanctions and Russia’s continued
access to markets elsewhere in the world means that the
agencies have not adopted the classic role of sanctionsbusters, although clearly many of their political operations
in Europe in particular are directed towards undermining
support for continued sanctions. Rather, the economic
mission of the Foreign Intelligence Service in particular
is to support strategic Russian businesses clinching
deals abroad, such as the Czech Temelín nuclear reactor
contract. 30 This could involve anything from seeking
to compromise, coerce, or suborn those involved in
allocating contracts, to gaining access to tenders and other
commercially sensitive information.
Meanwhile, the GRU and Foreign Intelligence Service
continue to seek to acquire details and examples of
technology denied them by export controls or that is beyond
Russian capabilities. In 2012, for example, the FBI broke
a ring that was using a Texas-based export company to
illegally export high-tech microelectronics with military
uses to Russia.31 Likewise, Germany has identified Foreign
Intelligence Service operations intended to steal renewable
energy technologies.32
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
Political control
8
Every external operation is first and foremost a domestic one:
the single most important role of the agencies is to secure
the regime. So it was under the tsars, then the Bolsheviks,
and now the new Russians: defending not a constitutional
order but a particular incumbent. This means carrying out
operations to prevent foreign “interference” as the Kremlin
sees it, as well as dividing strategic rivals such as the EU.
29 Anton Shekhovtsov, “Russia and Front National: Following the Money”, the
Interpreter, 3 May 2015, available at http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-and-frontnational-following-the-money/.
As Putin loses his old basis for legitimacy – his capacity
to guarantee steadily improving standards of living – he
is seeking to shore up his position with a narrative of
foreign threats and external triumphs. The agencies play a
crucial role not just in supporting the narrative but also in
conducting operations against enemies of the state, both
real and constructed. Counterterrorism has long been a
priority across the services and is often conducted abroad,
from monitoring and if need be eliminating ringleaders and
supporters, through to interdicting sources of finance and
recruits. As the potential source of terrorism shifts from
the North Caucasus to Russian Muslims elsewhere and
Central Asian migrant workers, the services are scrambling
to acquire new human sources and analytic capabilities.
At the same time, many of the agencies are consumed with
identifying and suppressing dissidents and government
critics. Well-known figures such as liberal nationalist Alexei
Navalny and communist Sergei Udaltsov have been the focus
of intensive campaigns by the FSB, Investigatory Committee,
and the Interior Ministry’s “E Service” (for “Extremism”).
However, there is a wider national and international effort to
prevent criticism of the regime from spreading, whether by
leaning on individuals — the FSB is reviving the KGB tactic
of the “prophylactic chat” meant to intimidate without the
need for prosecution — or by interfering with the free flow of
information. This involves measures including pressurising
remaining independent media outlets such as Dozhd TV and
using trolls to spam critical voices on the internet.
As the economic crisis leads to a rising tide of smallscale labour protests, the agencies are not only directly
monitoring attempts to organise strikes but also stepping
up long-running efforts to track public opinion and head off
any generalised unrest. The Interior Ministry and FSB are at
the forefront, but the FSO, true to its broad interpretation of
its role, is also active. It runs its own opinion polls and sits
on a multi-agency task force identifying potential hotspots
and dispensing targeted financial subsidies.33
Overall, Russia’s intelligence and security communities are
extremely active in their operations and unusually broad in
their responsibilities. They are directly wired into a much
wider array of state activities than in the West and have
revived their Soviet-era role as the multi-purpose Swiss
Army Knife of the Kremlin. What is less clear, though, is
how far this is of their own volition, and how far it is because
they are available and trusted, and cannot say no. Did the
Foreign Intelligence Service, for example, really want to get
involved in the Czech nuclear reactor contract? Do people
really join the FSO to parse opinion poll data? In other
words, are the agencies Putin’s boyars, or his serfs?
30 BIS (Czech counterintelligence), Annual Report of the Security Information Service
for 2014 (2015)
31 “Russian Agent and 10 Other Members of Procurement Network for Russian Military
and Intelligence Operating in the U.S. and Russia Indicted in New York”, FBI, 3 October
2012, available at https://www.fbi.gov/houston/press-releases/2012/russian-agentand-10-other-members-of-procurement-network-for-russian-military-and-intelligenceoperating-in-the-u.s.-and-russia-indicted-in-new-york.
32 Dirk Banse, “Putins Konjunkturprogramm: Russische Agenten spionieren deutsche
Energie-Unternehmen aus”, Welt am Sonntag, 21 June 2009, available at http://www.
welt.de/wams_print/article3965455/Putins-Konjunkturprogramm-Russische-Agentenspionieren-deutsche-Energie-Unternehmen-aus.html.
33 “Vladimir Putin’s Bodyguards Also Do Economic Stimulus”, Bloomberg, 9 December
2015, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-09/tea-farmingin-siberia-how-putin-s-guards-help-ward-off-unrest.
Russia’s intelligence architecture
9
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
Spookocracy?
In 1999, just before he became interim president, Putin
toasted fellow KGB veterans: “the group of FSB agents
that you sent to work undercover in the government has
accomplished the first part of its mission.” 34 Of course,
that was a joke; there was no grand plan to penetrate
the Kremlin, and Putin is not a mere agent of the FSB.
Nonetheless, commentators have claimed that there has
been a “Chekist takeover of the Russian state” and that
the FSB “has gained control of the country’s political and
economic sectors and exercises its power with a firm and
ruthless hand”, in a “Neo-KGB state”.35
While these make for exciting headlines, there is little
evidence to suggest any stranglehold by the FSB in particular
or the Chekists in general. For instance, Putin claims that
he took the momentous decision to annex Crimea himself
and only then convened his security chiefs to discuss its
execution.36 Beyond that, there are numerous cases in which
the agencies have not got their way and clear evidence of
disagreements between and within the agencies over policy,
personalities, and philosophies. In short, we should not
assume that public prestige and big budgets necessarily
indicate control, let alone unity.
Silovarchs and colonists?
www.ecfr.eu
Since the end of the USSR, there have been periodic
concerns that siloviki were colonising the Russian state
apparatus and economic oligarchy alike (what analyst
Daniel Treisman called the “silovarchs”).37 It is certainly
true that a disproportionate number of these figures seem
to have done well, although suggestions by researchers
Olga Kryshtanovskaya and Stephen White that they
constituted 25 percent of the state elite in 2003 and 42
percent in 2008 have been questioned.38 Bettina Renz has
noted that many were actually in relatively low ranks of the
hierarchy, while Rivera and Rivera put the figures at 20
percent for both years.39
To some, this represents the outcome of a quiet and slowburning coup by the Chekists.40 But the rise of these veterans
likely reflects structural factors. The KGB attracted many of the
most ambitious and ruthlessly effective late Soviet high-fliers,
not least because of the opportunities for travel and enrichment.
One would also expect them to do well under later regimes.
May 2016
34 Francesca Mereu, “Putin Made Good on Promise to FSB”, Moscow Times, 8 February
2008, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/putin-made-good-onpromise-to-fsb/302401.html.
35 Julie Anderson, “The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State”, International Journal
of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 19.2 (2006); “The Making of a Neo-KGB state”,
the Economist, 23 August 2007, available at http://www.economist.com/node/9682621.
36 “Putin reveals secrets of Russia’s Crimea takeover plot”, BBC, 9 March 2015, available
at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226.
37 Daniel Treisman, “Putin’s Silovarchs”, Orbis, Winter 2007, available at http://www.
sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/siloct06.pdf.
ECFR/169
38 Olga Kryshtanovskaya and Stephen White, “Putin’s Militocracy”, Post-Soviet Affairs,
19, 4 (2003) and “The Sovietization of Russian Politics”, Post-Soviet Affairs, 25, 4 (2009).
10
39 Bettina Renz, “Putin’s Militocracy? An Alternative Interpretation of Siloviki in
Contemporary Russian Politics”, Europe-Asia Studies, 58, 6 (2006); David and Sharon
Rivera, “Is Russia a militocracy? Conceptual issues and extant findings regarding elite
militarization”, Post-Soviet Affairs, 30, 1 (2014).
40 See, for example, Andrei Illarionov’s “The Siloviki in Charge”, Journal of Democracy,
20, 2 (2009).
There is also an inevitable “old boy’s network” in play,
especially around Putin. Members of his own security detail
have been rising, such as Viktor Zolotov, former head of the
SBP and now a first deputy interior minister, and Alexei
Dyumin, a deputy SBP head, who, in less than a year, went
from a colonel in Putin’s detail to deputy minister of defence,
a potential head of the GRU, and then governor of the Tula
region.41 There is no evidence to suggest an SBP or FSO
campaign, but rather that Putin is simply elevating familiar
faces and trusted individuals.
Furthermore, once officials leave the agencies, their
interests and circles of friends and allies change. To take
the most prominent example, Igor Sechin, chairman of
Rosneft, is a presumed former intelligence officer and is still
often described as the leading silovik. Yet for years he has
essentially confined his public statements to business and
general issues, and does not appear to have done anything
specifically to advance the cause of the agencies. In my
personal interactions with serving and former officers of the
agencies, I have not heard anyone speak about him as one of
them; he is now an oil baron, not a spook.
Likewise, there are many cases when the Chekists do not get
their way. The treatment of Alexei Navalny, swinging between
draconian sentencing and a degree of leniency, appears
to reflect the defeat of the FSB and the Interior Ministry’s
E-Service by purely political advisers to the Kremlin.
Likewise, Investigatory Committee chief Bastrykin’s efforts
to push through a bill changing the adversarial basis of court
proceedings in 2014 were demolished by the Presidential
Administration.
The Silovik bloc?
It is hard to see any evidence of true solidarity, let alone
coordination, within the agencies. They share certain
assumptions about the world, but, as analyst Denis Volkov
has observed, many of these beliefs — especially about the
“threat” from the West — are shared across the upper elite
as a whole.42 One could consider this a cultural colonisation
by the Chekists or simply as a reflection of wider currents
of opinion, but either way it suggests that the presence of
a distinct intelligence bloc within the elite is questionable.
The agencies will typically unite against a perceived common
threat. According to Source D, the FSB supported the GRU
when it resisted Kremlin attempts to have Dyumin, an
outsider, appointed head of military intelligence, because it
was concerned about a precedent being set. However, as has
been demonstrated, solidarities tend to break down as soon
as the opportunity arises to make money or avoid blame.
Bureaucratic struggles outweigh wider sectoral interests.
For example, though the Prosecutor General’s Office seems
to have supported Bastrykin’s attempt to revise the legal
41 Mark Galeotti, “What Putin’s Security Appointments Say About How Russia Works”,
War On The Rocks, 9 February 2016, available at http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/
what-putins-security-appointments-say-about-how-russia-works/.
42 Denis Volkov, “Russian Elite Opinion After Crimea”, Carnegie Moscow Center, 23
March 2016, available at http://carnegie.ru/2016/03/23/russian-elite-opinion-aftercrimea/ivsf.
system in principle, it instead concentrated on persuading
Putin to introduce a bill reinstating its supervisory powers
over the Investigatory Committee.43
scope for external validation of intelligence findings, such as
the US National Security Advisor, a well-informed outsider
responsible to the president and independent of the agencies.
Under Putin, policy has swung in directions congenial to
the security community as a whole and reflects many of
the attitudes they hold. However, this is more likely to be
because policy is shaped in the image of Putin the KGB
veteran, and because of other, broader issues, such as the
elite’s troubles adjusting to the loss of great power status,
and genuine differences in expectations between Moscow
and the West. A liberal and reformist minority has largely
been forced out of the centre ground of politics, but there is
no evidence that this was at the hands of the Chekists.
In Russia, the institutions of intelligence management — as
with so many other aspects of the formal political structure
— have been hollowed out and represent structures for the
dissemination of policy from the Kremlin rather than the
management of information into it. Most of the agencies
are directly subordinate to the president, the rest indirectly.
In practice, the Presidential Administration – rather than
the Security Council – has become the main organ through
which intelligence materials reach the president, and
tasking is communicated to the agencies. The characters of
these gatekeepers and their relationship to the president are
crucial in this most personalised of political systems.
Instead, the agencies have prospered because – and when –
they are useful to the Kremlin. Putin funds the FSB lavishly
because he wants an instrument of political control, not
because they control him or he fears them. He supports the
Foreign Intelligence Service and GRU because he wants
intelligence information and “left hand” covert operations.
After successfully managing security at Sochi, for example,
Syromolotov was moved from the FSB to become deputy
foreign minister for counterterrorism. Despite feverish
speculation at the time, this was not a creeping takeover
of the Foreign Ministry by the FSB, and still less a Foreign
Ministry land grab of FSB responsibilities. Rather, it reflected
the Kremlin’s hope that, in the post-Crimea, post-sanctions
world, counterterrorism was one area where Russia could
make a case for being a valuable partner to the West.
The most useful and most accurate way to think about
the agencies is not as a distinct bloc seeking to control
the Kremlin. Rather, this is a collection of institutions,
individuals, and factions engaging in the policy process.
They buy their way in through personal connections,
political weight, and – most frequently – by being useful
and having attractive ideas. In this respect, they are simply
part of an elite, alongside the military, financial interests,
defence industrialists, and all the other seemingly coherent
but, in practice, disparate elements of the modern Russian
political scene. It is therefore important to explore the ways
in which the agencies are controlled and the ways in which
they seek to influence policy.
Gatekeepers to the presidency
Many intelligence systems involve a single entity charged with
evaluating, collating, and assessing different perspectives. In
the US, for example, the director of national intelligence has
an oversight role and is responsible for the President’s Daily
Brief, while it is customary for representatives of different
services to sit in the same meeting, from the White House
Situation Room down. In the United Kingdom, the Cabinet
Office coordinates intelligence activity and manages the
process that seeks to create consensus in the form of Joint
Intelligence Committee papers. Furthermore, there is often
43 “‘Putin poruchil Prokurature nadzirat’ za Sledstvennym komitetom”, News.ru, 23
December 2014, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/23dec2014/sled.html.
The three primary gatekeepers are the Security Council
and its secretary, Nikolai Patrushev, the Presidential
Administration, and its head, Presidential Chief of Staff
Sergei Ivanov, and, more informally and less extensively,
Evgeny Murov, the outgoing head of the FSO.
The Security Council
The Security Council brings together representatives of all
security-related agencies, and is often presented as a kind
of parallel cabinet. However, in practice it is a consultative
rather than decision-making body. It has an unwieldy 30
members – including Putin — and is not used for meaningful
debate. Rather, it is a managerial forum that hears reports,
announces decisions, and resolves technical questions over
coordination and jurisdiction. The most important aspect
of the council’s activities is the work of Secretary Patrushev
and his secretariat from their offices near the Kremlin.
Patrushev is one of Putin’s closest client-allies. Another
veteran of the KGB and its successor agencies, he was
Putin’s choice to follow him as director of the FSB, before
becoming Security Council secretary in 2008. Patrushev has
shaped the role to suit his inclinations and Putin’s needs.
In essence, he is the intelligence and security community’s
representative and overseer.
He ensures that the agencies carry out the will of the
Kremlin, arbitrating disputes not serious enough to go to
Putin, and knocking heads together. It is also his place to
articulate their views to the leadership. For example, in 2012
he surprised many by suggesting in an interview that mass
anti-government protests “attest to the free activity of our
citizens [...] they are participating in the process of working
out the most important national decisions”.44 According to
Interior Ministry sources, he was speaking in part to signal
to the leadership that the ministry did not want to be used
indiscriminately against peaceful protesters.
44 Viktor Baranets and Aleksandr Kots, “‘Ran’shie glavnym razdrazhitelem byla Moskva,
teper’ Pekin”, Komsomolskaya Pravda, 17 February 2012, available at http://www.kp.ru/
daily/25836/2809802/.
11
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
Unapologetically hawkish, his public utterances range from
the infamous assertion that the US “would much rather that
Russia did not exist at all”, to his statement that “assurances
by some Western leaders that NATO is a purely defensive
alliance set up to safeguard global security are simply meant
to disguise its aggressive nature.”45 According to Source C,
“if you want him to forward a report, it has to be couched in
the most extreme language possible.”
This matters because the role of his secretariat is to provide
analytic support, disseminate information, and draft
documents for the Security Council and for the president,
as well as to monitor the implementation of presidential
instructions. In particular, it has a central role in the
periodic revision of Russia’s National Security Strategy. It
has the right to request and receive information and reports
from any government body, including the military and
intelligence agencies. As a result, it is one of the crucial
conduits of information to the Kremlin, with the power to
support or withhold.
Although the secretariat — and its expert committees —
drafts policy, it is relatively small. When Putin first came
to power, it had around 200 staff, and there is little reason
to believe that there has been any dramatic increase. By
contrast, the British Cabinet Office has some 2,000 staff,
and the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(ODNI) has over 1,600. In other words, this is at best a “big
picture” agency, unable to do more than flag up particular
reports as worth consideration for the president’s desk.
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
The Presidential Administration
12
The Presidential Administration is the president’s executive
office, responsible for everything from drafting laws to
briefing the press, monitoring government activity, and
overseeing presidential representatives to the regions.
Given the hyper-presidentialism of the Putin system (or
maybe hyper-personalism, as it is about the dominance of
the man, rather than the office), it is unsurprising that this
is an extremely important institution. Although there are
opportunities for representatives of key agencies to brief
Putin in person or through submissions, the overwhelming
majority of analytic and intelligence materials that reach
him come through the Presidential Administration.
Intelligence materials are only one of the inputs it assesses,
triages, and packages for senior policymakers, primarily the
president. In some ways it is closer to the British Cabinet
Office, but apart from the huge differences in culture
between a civil service agency used to regular changes in
government and one beholden to a specific and lasting
regime, it also handles intelligence very differently. There
is no single central department, such as the British Joint
Intelligence Committee secretariat. Rather, several of its
divisions draw on and even task intelligence activity.
The agencies themselves appear to have no direct traction
on the way their materials are used. Rather, Presidential
Administration officials — most of whom have no
intelligence background — decide what information will
be passed around and up the chain of command and how
to incorporate materials into their briefings and reports.
The sense from those privy to its inner workings is that,
as a result, the use of these materials is often driven by
political considerations.
Given that Putin is notoriously suspicious of being led by his
officials, there is also an imperative to cite multiple sources,
and thus a highly-classified cable from an agency may be
juxtaposed with, and implicitly given similar weight to,
a newspaper report or a paper from a think-tank (which,
as will be discussed below, may well have been written to
order). As a result, the true “value added” of intelligence
reporting is often likely to be missed or wasted.
Briefing the boss
Overall, then, the day-to-day products of Russia’s intelligence
activities often appear to flow through structures — the
Security Council and Presidential Administration — which
exert a degree of control over what actually makes it to the
Kremlin. However, this is only one of the ways that the
intelligence community interacts with the president and
those closest to him.
However, the Presidential Administration is not primarily
an intelligence-oriented organisation but a political one.
The Foreign Intelligence Service and the FSB both produce
daily reports analogous to the US President’s Daily Brief. This
gives them a degree of unfiltered access, whether in written
form or in person. The GRU and FSO also send regular reports
directly to the president. However, there is a key point of
distinction. Each service briefs the president individually; it is
very rare for there to be any direct comparison or discussion
between them, except as brokered through the Presidential
Administration and Security Council. There are some formal
and informal sessions at which the heads of multiple services
may be present for policy discussions, but anecdotal data
suggests that even this is rare. Using the publicly accessible
listings of Putin’s official meetings, Michael Rochlitz and
Andrei Soldatov found that on average 14 percent of his
meetings in 2000-2007 were with siloviki (broadly defined),
but only around 5.5 percent in 2008-2015.46
45 “Za destabilizatsiei Ukrainy skryvaetsya popytka radikal’nogo oslableniya Rossii”,
Kommersant, 22 June 2015, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2752250;
“NATO Military Buildup ‘Washes Out Structure of Global Security’”, Sputnik, 22
December 2015, available at http://sputniknews.com/military/20151222/1032157940/
nato-russia-threat.html.
46 Andrei Soldatov and Michael Rochlitz, “The Logic of Power in Russia’s Changing
Political Order: The Siloviki”, unpublished draft paper, 2016, cited with permission.
It is not coincidental that the head of this increasingly
powerful agency is again a hawkish KGB veteran. A former
Security Council secretary, Sergei Ivanov also served in the
Foreign Intelligence Service and FSB, and has a close personal
relationship with Putin. Although much more circumspect
than Patrushev in his public statements, Ivanov’s views are
similar and he too sets the tone within his organisation.
One-to-one briefings can be powerful and effective, but
they place a premium on the briefer’s personal relationship
with, and ability to appeal to the inclinations of, the
president. They rarely get into the nuts and bolts of detail,
sourcing, and thus credibility. Sometimes the Security
Council or, more often, the Presidential Administration
will weigh in at meetings or beforehand to support or
question, but often they have not been willing or able to
devote the time to that kind of pre-briefing exploration,
especially given the lack of a specialist intelligence
assessment department within either.
Nor is there a position such as a national security adviser,
the expert outsider whose job is sometimes to challenge
intelligence findings. For a while this position existed
under Yeltsin, but it was essentially rolled into the position
of secretary of the Security Council. Yet not only does
Patrushev have a host of administrative and political duties,
he also has a strong loyalty to the FSB.
If anything, FSO head General Evgeny Murov sometimes
seems to have played this role de facto. Given that part of the
FSO’s remit is to watch the other agencies, he has both the
ability and the justification to identify when cases are based
on flimsy data or on self-interest. However, this appears
to be particular to him: as the longest serving of any of the
service chiefs – appointed in 2000 – and clearly having no
higher ambitions (Source A called him “the last of the oldschool duty-and-honour Chekists”), he could get away with
it. However, he has been trying to retire for two years now,
and it is unlikely his successor will have the will, capacity, or
gravitas to follow in his footsteps.47
The very personal way of conveying intelligence means
that much depends on the decision-maker’s willingness
to entertain unwelcome information and the agencies’
willingness to risk, as one interlocutor put it, “bringing bad
news to the tsar’s table”. Since his return to the presidency
in 2012, Putin appears to have been increasingly hostile
to questioning. This has been visible in the shrinking
of his personal circle and the alienation of more liberal
and freethinking former allies, such as former Finance
Minister Alexei Kudrin.
It also appears to be evident within the intelligence process.
Many GRU insiders, for example, credit Igor Sergun with
turning around their service’s fortunes by being a skilful
courtier. As Source C put it, “he knew how to flatter, while
playing the bluff soldier.” Another was more specific:
“Sergun always went with the flow. He would gauge the
mood of the room and tailor what he was going to say to
suit. He’d even have multiple talking points in his notes to
be ready either way.”
Likewise, the relatively lowly status of the Foreign
Intelligence Service has been ascribed by many to the lack
of a close personal relationship between Putin and director
47 Ivan Petrov, “Mnogoletnemu rukovoditelyu FSO Evgeniyu Murovy podyskali zamenu”,
RBK Daily, 18 June 2014, available at http://www.rbc.ru/politics/17/06/2014/930834.
shtml.
Mikhail Fradkov, and to the service’s slow adaptation
to changing expectations. Over the campaign to try to
use social conservatism as a wedge issue in Europe, for
example, the Foreign Intelligence Service was apparently
unfashionably dubious about its value and lost points to
the more enthusiastic FSB when this was adopted as policy,
according to sources A and F.
Getting “into the room”
To be “in the room” and influence policy, intelligence chiefs
cannot do their job properly – delivering the facts without
concern for the consequences. Rather, they must shape
and sugarcoat to suit the president and his allies or risk
marginalisation and dismissal. Perhaps the best illustration
of this is the rise of the FSB. The service even delivers
briefings on foreign affairs, despite this hardly being its
forte, and these are often considered first, setting the tone
for future conversations. A Western diplomat, for example,
ruefully suggested that Putin’s apparent belief in some of
the more outré conspiracy theories — such as over Maidan
— probably stem from FSB briefings, “which seem as much
culled from the press and the more lunatic think-tanks as
from actual intelligence”.
Of course, it would be a mistake to assume that Putin
makes every decision or always knows his mind. On some
matters — especially to do with the division of assets —
he does micromanage, but on many others he simply sets
broad parameters and expects others to articulate policy.
He encourages a marketplace of ideas and picks whichever
appeals to him. To this end, the agencies can have traction
over policy by shaping and influencing broader discussions.
Sometimes this is through friendly legislators who propose
bills and raise publicly what the agencies would like
discussed.48 The FSB often relies, for example, on Irina
Yarovaya, a former public prosecutor and chair of the Duma
Committee on Security. It was she, for example, who pushed
through 2016 amendments to the law on the FSB, which
became infamous for lifting prohibitions on shooting at
women and children under certain circumstances.49 Each
agency has its tame parliamentarians, from the Interior
Ministry’s former deputy, Vladimir Vasiliev, head of the
United Russia bloc in the Duma, to the ally of the Prosecutor
General’s Office, former journalist Alexander Khinstein.
Think-tanks and the media
The services also seek to influence national conversations
and moods through the media and (sometimes only
notionally) independent organisations such as think-tanks.
The law enforcement agencies and the FSB, for example,
are publicly active, with Twitter accounts, media relations
departments, and frequent public statements. The FSB
has an infamously close relationship with the tabloid
LifeNews, for example, which it often uses to embarrass
48 I am indebted to Ekaterina Schulmann for invaluable guidance on this section.
49 “Yarovaya: popravki v zakon o FSB napravleny protiv terroristov”, RIA Novosti, 22
December 2015, available at http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151222/1347080970.html.
13
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
enemies. Targets, from liberal parliamentarian Gennady
Gudkov to assassinated opposition leader Boris Nemtsov,
have suffered from leaks of undercover video footage and
other questionable materials.50 Its outreach even extends
to a bimonthly magazine published under the auspices of
its Public Council, FSB: za i protiv (FSB: For and Against).51
It is perhaps unsurprising that the overwhelming answer
tends to be “for”.
Services such as the Foreign Intelligence Service and the
GRU are rather less able to tell their story (beyond the
gung-ho tales of Spetsnaz glory found in magazines and
the military’s Zvezda TV channel), so instead encourage
TV series and films talking up the exploits of Russian spies,
both current and historical. Beyond that, though, they also
support the array of Russian think-tanks that play an underresearched part in the policy process.
One that has become infamous is the Russian Institute
for Strategic Studies (RISI). Headed by former Foreign
Intelligence Service Lt. General Leonid Reshetnikov, this is
an expansive organisation with 12 branch offices, a journal,
and even the “Riss-TV” channel to get its message out.
Although it has not technically been part of the Foreign
Intelligence Service since 2009, Source F describes it as
“the service’s PR arm”. From warning against Sweden
and Finland joining NATO to damning the “terrorists”
of Ukraine, its position is in step with official policy and
Foreign Intelligence Service analysis.52
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
There are an array of little-known policy shops, from the
Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis (ISOA), headed
by former KGB Major General Vagif Guseynov to the
Institute of Political Studies (headed by Sergei Markov,
persona non grata in both Estonia and Ukraine for his
views), which often have close relationships with one or
more of the agencies. The Presidential Administration
often commissions reports from these think-tanks with
specific recommendations in mind.
14
Conclusions and recommendations
The following system for categorising military officers has
been apocryphally attributed to various generals:53
“I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The
clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each
officer always possesses two of these qualities.
“Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the
General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be
made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who
is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership
posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental
clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and
industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.”
In much the same way, one can consider the implications
of having intelligence agencies that are aggressive
or defensive, and well or badly managed. Defensive
intelligence agencies that are badly managed do little
harm in times of peace but offer no protection in hostile
conditions. Defensive and well-managed ones present
a strong shield against enemies. Aggressive ones are
formidable instruments of statecraft when well managed
but dangerously counterproductive when not.
There can be little question about the aggressiveness of
the Russian intelligence community. A more important
question is how well they are managed, not just in terms
of day-to-day control but in terms of tasking, the extent to
which intelligence is properly analysed and fed into policy,
and how the agencies fit into a sensible wider strategy.
In many ways, the Ukrainian conflict encapsulates this
issue. In both Crimea and the Donbas, the Russians often
displayed extremely good intelligence on a tactical level,
with accurate assessments of Ukrainian troop positions,
the willingness of individual officers to fight, and when
government forces were preparing an attack. Furthermore,
the agencies have deployed a range of active measures, from
terrorist attacks and cyber intrusions to disinformation
campaigns and political dirty tricks.
On the other hand, there seems to have been a startling
dearth of effective political and strategic intelligence, before
and during the campaign. Either the agencies did not realise
that the West would be more forceful than after the 2008
Georgian war, or they did not convey their concerns to the
leadership, or they were not listened to. Either way, this was
an intelligence failure that appears not to have been a oneoff but a reflection of serious systemic weaknesses.
50 See LifeNews, 18 January 2012, available at http://lifenews.ru/news/79472 and
28 February 2015, available at http://lifenews.ru/news/150504. See also “Was Surkov
Behind The LifeNews Raid?”, RFE/RL, 24 March 2015, available at http://www.rferl.org/
content/surkov-behind-the-lifenews-raid/26918674.html.
51 Available at https://osfsb.ru/press-center/m/default.aspx.
52 See Ivan Mon’kov, “O perspektivakh vstuplenniya Shvetsii i Finlyandii v NATO”, 25
Fabruary 2016, available at http://riss.ru/analitycs/27082/ and Igor Druz’, “Rezhim
bezrodnykh kosmopolitov”, 26 January 2016, available at http://riss.ru/analitycs/25646/.
See also Paul Goble, “Russian Think Tank That Pushed for Invasion of Ukraine Wants
Moscow to Overthrow Lukashenka”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, 27 January 2015, available at
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=43458.
The agencies are now engaged in a campaign of active
measures in the West that, again, may often seem tactically
effective but is strategically disastrous. Russia has not
53 Including Carl von Clausewitz, Helmuth von Moltke, and Erich von Manstein, though it
probably originates with the less well-known General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. For
the quote and an exploration of its origins, see http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/
clever-lazy/.
created the tectonic pressures currently opening fissures
within Europe, from nationalism to the refugee crisis, but it
is gleefully taking advantage of them. However, in the long
term, it is vanishingly unlikely that Europe will become so
divided that it can be dictated to by Russia. Indeed, whether
or not some sanctions are lifted, Russia is declining and
destabilising at an even faster rate. Furthermore, Russia’s
heavy-handed tactics have galvanised NATO, alienated
nations such as Germany, and dissipated what minimal soft
power Moscow ever had.
This is the irony. Putin has the intelligence and security
community he wanted: a powerful, feral, multi-headed, and
obedient hydra. But it is Putin himself, and his dreams of
Russia as a renewed great power, that is the real victim
of this aggressive and badly managed beast. The agencies
reinforce his assumptions and play to his fantasies rather
than informing and challenging his worldview, as good
intelligence services should.
When the hydra’s heads are not gnawing at one another,
their activities reinforce a global image of Russia as a bully
and a brat: at best, a power dismissive of the etiquette of
international relations; at worst, an unpredictable threat
with whom no lasting understanding can be reached. As
Source E put it, “the busier and more ‘productive’ the special
services are, the more it will cost us, sooner or later.”
For Europe, the challenge is how best to resist the
incursions of the Russian “special services” while
maximising the cost to Moscow.
Recommendation 1: Hybrid defence for hybrid
threats
Setting aside the vexed debate as to whether Russia’s
combined military-political-economic challenge ought
to be called “hybrid war” or not, it is clear that it cannot
be deterred merely with conventional military means.
Rather, it calls for “hybrid defence”.54 In part this means
addressing governance issues, not least resolving disputes
that currently allow Moscow to play on divisions within
Europe, from Greece’s alienation from the EU to German
disputes over migrants.
Crucially, this also means enhanced counterintelligence
activities and greater capacity-sharing, especially for smaller
nations with limited resources in this area. The push to
ensure that NATO members reach the alliance target of
spending 2 percent of GDP on defence should not be at the
expense of counterintelligence. Indeed, for countries facing
especially fierce Russian active measures, such as the Baltic
states, the latter ought to take priority. Other allies can
provide military protection, but only the Baltics themselves
can combat Russian intelligence activities and information
operations in their countries.
54 I explore this more in Mark Galeotti, “Time To Think About ‘Hybrid Defense’”, War On
The Rocks, 30 July 2015, available at http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/time-to-thinkabout-hybrid-defense/.
Likewise, for countries where the real challenge is financial
penetration or cyber intrusion, or even Russian propaganda,
defences against these dangers should be given more
emphasis. Arguably, for example, better financial regulators
and more police forensic accountants would serve the UK
better than investment in military capacity.
Recommendation 2: Zero tolerance for Russian
intrusions
There is always a debate as to how firmly and how publicly
to respond to Russian intelligence operations, especially
given Moscow’s propensity for tit-for-tat retaliation.
In the current environment, European governments
must not be held hostage by this risk or by the desire to
improve the relationship. Rather, they should respond
firmly and publicly to all such intrusions, regardless of
the immediate practical and rhetorical consequences.
Estonia, for example, has already put this into practice,
with its policy of publicly naming or prosecuting spies
rather than quietly expelling them.55
Europe’s authorities should also sanction the vehicles of
Russian intelligence operations. For example, if an illegal
intelligence operative is identified as working within a
Russian company, the company should face consequences.
There have been recent cases where Russian news agencies,
for example, have been implicated in providing cover for
spies, such as RIA Novosti in the case of Leonid Sviridov,
who was accused of posing as a journalist in Poland.56 If
there is a strong enough case to expel an individual, the
agency that facilitated his or her activities should also be
considered culpable.
This would not only deliver a political message – the Kremlin
currently sees Europe as “softer” on its espionage than the
US – but would also deliver a blow to the intelligence agency
in question and its allies. The agencies gain resources,
indulgences, and prestige through results, and lose them
through failures. Their current risk-taking behaviour
reflects a belief that the potential gains are high and the risks
low. By reversing that cost-benefit analysis, and convincing
them that aggressive behaviour is likely to lead to major
costs, European governments can condition them to greater
caution. While the Kremlin sets broad policy and tasking,
the agencies’ leaderships make many tactical decisions, and
they can be influenced.
55 Michael Weiss, “The Estonian spymasters”, Foreign Affairs, 3 June 2014, available
at
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/central-europe/2014-06-03/estonianspymasters.
56 “Russian Reporter Forced Out Of Poland On Spying Charges”, RFE/RL, 13 December
2015, available at http://www.rferl.org/content/russian-reporter-forced-out-of-polandon-spying-charges/27423587.html.
15
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
Recommendation 3: Follow the money and
starve the hydra
The more Russian operations revolve around active
measures, the more they involve money that has to be spent
or donated. Just as Europe’s governments should make
counterintelligence more central to protecting themselves
from the current Russian challenge, they should also focus
more on addressing the capacity of its state and intelligence
structures (along with gangsters, kleptocrats, and tax
dodgers) to freely move their money around and hide its
sources and beneficiaries. This has been asserted again and
again with no success, but it may gain traction now that it
can be framed in terms of national security rather than mere
law enforcement.
Countries such as Latvia, long vulnerable to the penetration
of their financial systems by questionable Russian money,
are making real progress in tackling this. Nonetheless,
small nations with substantial amounts of Russian money
within their borders should make tracking finances a greater
priority, such as Cyprus, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria.
While the overwhelming majority of the funds may well be
legal, or at least unconnected with intelligence activity, the
Kremlin’s capacity to move money into and through Europe
– or generate funds there – to support active measures is an
important problem. Governments should ensure that major
financial hubs such as London, Luxembourg, and Frankfurt
are more assiduously policed, or more tightly self-regulated.
Recommendation 4: Understand the beast
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
European authorities have a wealth of tactical knowledge
and expertise about Russia’s intelligence operations and
services. Much of this is shared through the EU, NATO,
and through bilateral and other channels, but governments
should work to expand this. However, there is less of a
clear sense of the political context in which the agencies
operate, which affects wider discussions about responses
and counter-measures. In other words, there is often a good
understanding of what the Russian intelligence services do
but much less sense of why, or of its effect on policy.
16
on the information at its disposal. The better European
authorities understand the sources, biases, and limitations
of that information, the more accurately they can predict
Russian actions.
Recommendation 5: But keep a sense of balance
Despite all the above, this is not a new Cold War. The
Russians do not pose a long-term geopolitical challenge to
the West, and Europe’s governments should think ahead
to rebuilding relations with Russia in the inevitable postPutin era. There is room for greater basic awareness of
the problems, including ensuring that European visitors
to Russia are less vulnerable to recruitment. 57 Russian
students, entrepreneurs, tourists, and workers in Europe
will inevitably include some intelligence officers. However,
they are also potential assets for Europe, not so much for
recruitment as spies (though that will happen) but as cultural
contacts, to minimise the Kremlin’s efforts to portray its
current imperial designs as some kind of defensive campaign
against a hostile West.
Russia, ultimately, is a declining, middle-rank power,
currently able to seem to exert disproportionate influence
through the concentration of scarce resources and
political control and a willingness to break the rules of
international behaviour. This will not last, though, and the
mismanagement of its intelligence agencies is a metaphor
for its general inability in the longer term to cope with the
practical limitations of its position.
Europe needs to find the right balance between protecting
itself from Russian intelligence activity and deterring
Kremlin adventurism, and alienating the Russian
population. In spite of all the official propaganda, Russians
are still culturally aligned with the West and are in the future
likely to seek to emulate its social, legal, economic, and
political progress.
This is not necessarily anyone’s fault. Counterintelligence
services are primarily concerned with fighting the tactical
battle on the ground, while foreign policy specialists
focus on their regular counterparts. However, given the
significance of the “special services” to Russia’s geopolitics,
it is important not just to understand but also to explore and
exploit the degree to which they are divided, competitive,
instrumentalised, and often misused.
European governments should re-focus their analytical
efforts on the policy environment that Russia’s intelligence
services operate in. Not only would this open up further
tactical options – such as the capacity to exploit the rivalries
between agencies – but, more importantly, it would provide
an additional source of insight into Russian policymaking.
The Kremlin is a rational actor, but its decisions are based
57 Norway’s Police Security Service (PST), for example, has warned that Norwegians
are “too naïve” when in Russia and thus vulnerable to being blackmailed or co-opted.
Ellen Omland and Mari Reisjō, “PST advarer mot russiske sexfeller”, NRK, 9 November
2015, available at http://www.nrk.no/norge/pst-advarer_-nordmenn-lures-i-russiskhonningfelle-1.12641490.
17
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
www.ecfr.eu
May 2016
ECFR/169
18
Abbreviations
A methodological note
AP
Research on intelligence operations and politics can
be problematic at the best of times; in Russia’s current
environment of uncertainty and suspicion, these are certainly
not the best of times. Beyond open source materials, this paper
draws heavily on conversations with Russian and foreign
interlocutors who are or were once within the intelligence
and security communities or who have been in a position to
closely observe them at work.
Administratsiya prezidenta, Presidential
Administration
FAPSI Federalnoe agenstvo pravitelstvennoi svyazi i
informatsii, Federal Agency for Government
Communications and Information
FSB
Federalnaya sluzhba bezopasnosti, Federal
Security Service
FSKN Federalnaya sluzhba po kontrolyu za oborotom
narkotikov, Federal Service for the Control of the
Struggle against Narcotics
FSO
Federal’naya sluzhba okhrany, Federal Protection
Service
GP
General’naya prokuratura, Prosecutor General’s
Office
GRU
Glavnoe razvedyvatel’noe upravlenie, Main
Intelligence Directorate
KGB
Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti, Committee
for State Security
MID
Ministerstvo inostrannykh del, Foreign Ministry
MVD
Ministerstvo vnutrennykh del, Interior Ministry
NAK
Natsionalnyi antiterroristicheskii komitet, National
Anti-Terrorism Committee
SB
Sovet bezopasnosti, Security Council
SBP
Sluzhba bezopasnosti prezidenta, Presidential
Security Service
SK
Sledstvennyi komitet, Investigatory Committee
SVR
Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki, Foreign Intelligence
Service
For obvious reasons, they cannot be identified. Instead,
a general sense of their role is given, and six particular
individuals (Sources A-F) who were of especially great
value to this study are given a more extensive outline below.
However, it is important to note that no one source was
treated as authoritative, and when one is quoted, it is simply a
useful or representative phrasing.
Source A is a former Russian intelligence officer who worked
within the analytic divisions of foreign intelligence, first the
KGB and then its post-Soviet counterparts.
Source B is a serving colonel within the FSB, whose career
includes stints in economic security and counterintelligence.
Source C is a foreign policy expert who has worked within
the government apparatus under Putin and in the process
handled intelligence materials. He claims never to have been
an intelligence officer, although his career trajectory hints
otherwise.
Source D is a journalist who has had extensive contacts with
the domestic security side of the intelligence community, and
who has a close relative working within the FSB.
Source E is a retired Baltic counterintelligence officer who
previously worked within the KGB.
Source F is a Russian academic with close links to the
Foreign Ministry who retains good connections with the
Foreign Intelligence Service and has a close family connection
to an official within the Security Council secretariat.
I am especially indebted to all six for their willingness to
discuss these arcane and sensitive issues.
About the author
Acknowledgements
Mark Galeotti is a widely-published specialist in Russian
security issues — from political-military affairs to the murkier
understrata of crime and intelligence services — who has
been teaching, researching, and writing in his native UK, the
US, and Russia.
First of all, I would like to thank ECFR for supporting a project
that quite literally could not have been conducted without
spending time in Russia. Beyond that, particular thanks to
Anna Arutunyan, Michael Rochlitz, Ekaterina Schulmann,
and Davron Yuldashev for their ideas and assistance, and all
the unnamed sources willing to talk to me on these arcane
topics over the years. They cannot take the blame for anything
that I have written, though.
Educated at Cambridge University and the London School
of Economics, he has been head of the history department
at Keele University, professor of global affairs at the New
York University Center for Global Affairs, and a visiting
faculty member at Rutgers-Newark, MGIMO (Russia), and
Charles University (Czech Republic). He now divides his time
between Prague and London as director of the consultancy
Mayak Intelligence.
ECFR would also like to thank the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
of Finland for its support. This paper represents only the
views of the author and not those of the Ministry.
19
PUTIN'S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA'S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
ABOUT ECFR
The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is the first
pan-European think-tank. Launched in 2007, its objective is to
conduct cutting-edge research, build coalitions for change, and
promote informed debate on the development of coherent,
effective and values-based European foreign policy.
ECFR has developed a strategy with three distinctive elements
that define its activities:
•A pan-European Council. ECFR has brought together a
distinguished Council of over 250 members – politicians,
decision makers, thinkers and business people from the EU’s
member states and candidate countries – which meets once
a year. Through regular geographical and thematic task
forces, members provide ECFR staff with advice and feedback
on policy ideas and help with ECFR’s activities in their own
countries. The Council is chaired by Carl Bildt, Emma Bonino
and Mabel van Oranje.
•A
physical presence in the main EU member states.
Uniquely among European think-tanks, ECFR has offices
in Berlin, London, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Sofia and Warsaw,
allowing the organisation to channel the opinions and
perspectives of a wide range of EU member states. Our panEuropean presence puts us at the centre of policy debates
in European capitals, and provides a platform for research,
debate, advocacy and communications.
•D
eveloping contagious ideas that get people talking.
ECFR has brought together a team of distinguished
researchers and practitioners from all over Europe to carry
out innovative research and policy development projects with
a pan-European focus. ECFR produces original research;
publishes policy reports; hosts private meetings, public
debates, and “friends of ECFR” gatherings in EU capitals; and
reaches out to strategic media outlets.
ECFR is a registered charity funded by charitable foundations,
national governments, companies and private individuals.
These donors allow us to publish our ideas and advocate for a
values-based EU foreign policy. ECFR works in partnership with
other think-tanks and organisations but does not make grants
to individuals or institutions.
The European Council on Foreign
Relations does not take collective
positions. This paper, like all publications
of the European Council on Foreign
Relations, represents only the views of
its authors.
Copyright of this publication is held
by the European Council on Foreign
Relations. You may not copy, reproduce,
republish or circulate in any way the
content from this publication except for
your own personal and non-commercial
use. Any other use requires the prior
written permission of the European
Council on Foreign Relations
© ECFR May 2016
ISBN: 978-1-910118-69-6
Published by the European Council
on Foreign Relations (ECFR),
7th Floor, Kings Buildings,
16 Smith Square, London,
SW1p 3HQ, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Design by David Carroll & Co davidcarrollandco.com
ECFR/169
May 2016
www.ecfr.eu
www.ecfr.eu